Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:52 AM - Re: Performance (Was Wood Prop Advice) (kurt schrader)
2. 03:43 AM - Re: List Enclosure Support (Michel Verheughe)
3. 05:07 AM - Re: Re: Wing tanks - Was West System Epoxy answer (Don Smythe)
4. 06:05 AM - Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Don Smythe)
5. 08:27 AM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Dave G.)
6. 08:52 AM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Don Smythe)
7. 11:38 AM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Jerry Liles)
8. 01:51 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Glenn Horne)
9. 02:02 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Don Smythe)
10. 02:14 PM - Re: Specs (John Anderson)
11. 02:15 PM - Re: Specs (John Anderson)
12. 04:35 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (WBL)
13. 05:39 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Larry Huntley)
14. 06:27 PM - Re: Re: high oil temps 912 (kerrjohna@comcast.net)
15. 06:32 PM - Re: Specs (wingsdown)
16. 06:44 PM - Re: Specs (John Anderson)
17. 06:44 PM - Re: Specs (John Anderson)
18. 06:46 PM - Anyone flying a 7 with the 914? (darinh)
19. 06:53 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (Glenn Horne)
20. 06:58 PM - Re: Specs (wingsdown)
21. 07:31 PM - Re: Specs (John Anderson)
22. 08:11 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (dwight purdy)
23. 08:11 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (dwight purdy)
24. 08:49 PM - Pics do paint 1000 words (ron schick)
25. 10:35 PM - Re: Specs (kurt schrader)
26. 10:39 PM - Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel (kurt schrader)
27. 10:58 PM - Re: Re: Wing tanks - Was West System Epoxy answer (kurt schrader)
28. 11:31 PM - Re: Specs (kurt schrader)
29. 11:36 PM - Re: radiator additive ? don S (kurt schrader)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Performance (Was Wood Prop Advice) |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Hi John,
I found my best ROC speed to be very critical at 59
knots. My ROC dropped 9% just 2 knots faster and 22%
just 2 knots slower. That steep curve was the biggest
surprise of my testing. I thought I could get good
enough at best ROC within +/-5 knots, but not true.
If I really need to clear something, I have to hawk
the speed.
I suspect it is due to a steep drag curve that will
improve when I add more fairings, and I wonder how
this compares to the rest of you? How critical is
your climb speed?
Another thing I need to test is flappeon angle.
Reflexed a little might help a lot. Those who use it
for trim say it makes a big difference.
Those things you could consider too.
Combining this with your prop pitch change figures and
what you wrote before, I'm not quite sure what limits
you reach first.
If you are using 5000 rpm as your upper limit, I would
set pitch to fall just short of this RPM limit in
level full power flight and see how it performs there
for climb. If you want more climb than that gives,
you have to watch your RPM yourself. It will not be
self limiting with less pitch.
If you want more cruise, you can always add more pitch
until climb suffers too much to suit you.
With your observed boost drop below 4300 rpm, you
probably don't want to set pitch to give below this
for static full power rpm.
For me, I would set pitch to give me say 4900 at max
speed and throttle and make sure I get more than 4400
static. Start from there and tweek more pitch for the
biggest :-) at 4000 cruise, as long as climb is good.
This is fun!
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes Kurt, I tend to climb faster too but for the
> test result I've put it
> through the paces. 5000max, 4600 @55kts BRC speed
> 1500'pm (just one up of
> course) and 4300 97kts level. Ive settled at 4000
> for cruise as runs
> smoothest there and 90. I notice quite a boost drop
> from 4300 down to 4000.
> I've very pleased with how well it has turned out...
__________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: List Enclosure Support |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Michel Verheughe <michel@online.no>
On Jun 4, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Matt Dralle wrote:
> 6) Only the following file types and extensions will be allowed:
> jpg, bmp, gif, txt, xls, pdf, and doc
Dear Matt,
I would suggest that you remove the BMP format from your list. This
uncompressed file format gives no advantage whatsoever over the JPG
format that is much, much more compressed.
I am the co-moderator of a Yahoo list where the rule is this: No
attachment over 100 Kb. This is more than enough for posting e.g.
photos of our aircraft in say, a format of 640x480 JPG. Anyone having a
problem to understand the different formats of graphic files is very
welcomed to take contact with me privately for a detailed explanation.
Computer graphic design is my professional occupation since 1981.
Cheers,
Michel
do not archive
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing tanks - Was West System Epoxy answer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Kurt,
That does make a bladder install much more difficult. It might still be
doable with a well thought out installation kit???
Don Smythe
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "kurt schrader"
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Re: Wing tanks - Was West System Epoxy answer
>
> One thing to remember when using bladders is that all
> corners, high and low, of a bladder must be fastened.
> If not, the bladder can move in its space whenever the
> tank is not full, and this will cause problems. Fuel,
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
http://www.egyptian.net/~raymacke/Cbnskif27.htm
Here is an interesting article from a person using Caswell epoxy tank sealer
and ethanol fuel.
Don Smythe
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Dave G." <occom@ns.sympatico.ca>
Since the damage caused by ethanol is irreversable and apparently
unavoidable if using Mogas. It might be worthwhile to start considering
using LL100 Avgas. It will increase service requirements on most Rotax
engines but that appears to be the better choice. The FAA has already get
the EPA and other agencies from messing with Avgas, and they are looking for
lead free avgas formulas. It's highly unlikely they'll allow ethanol into
Avgas.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:02 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
> http://www.egyptian.net/~raymacke/Cbnskif27.htm
>
> Here is an interesting article from a person using Caswell epoxy tank
> sealer and ethanol fuel.
>
> Don Smythe
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
At near $2.00 per gallon difference between 100LL and Auto fuel it won' take
long to have new Ethanol proof fuel tanks made of gold or silver. I would
ask which is the greatest danger to a Rotax 2 stroke, 100LL or Auto gas w/
ethanol??? This question has probably been raised before but, I missed it.
Don Smythe
----- Original Message -----
> Since the damage caused by ethanol is irreversable and apparently
> unavoidable if using Mogas. It might be worthwhile to start considering
> using LL100 Avgas. It will increase service requirements on most Rotax
> engines but that appears to be the better choice. The FAA has already get
> the EPA and other agencies from messing with Avgas, and they are looking
> for lead free avgas formulas. It's highly unlikely they'll allow ethanol
> into Avgas.
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: Jerry Liles <wliles@bayou.com>
Avid used to routinely run their 582 powered demo aircraft on 100LL when
flying from show to show. That included from Idaho to Florida. Plugs
got replaced at 20 hrs.
Jerry
Don Smythe wrote:
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
> At near $2.00 per gallon difference between 100LL and Auto fuel it
> won' take long to have new Ethanol proof fuel tanks made of gold or
> silver. I would ask which is the greatest danger to a Rotax 2 stroke,
> 100LL or Auto gas w/ ethanol??? This question has probably been
> raised before but, I missed it.
>
> Don Smythe
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> Since the damage caused by ethanol is irreversable and apparently
>> unavoidable if using Mogas. It might be worthwhile to start
>> considering using LL100 Avgas. It will increase service requirements
>> on most Rotax engines but that appears to be the better choice. The
>> FAA has already get the EPA and other agencies from messing with
>> Avgas, and they are looking for lead free avgas formulas. It's highly
>> unlikely they'll allow ethanol into Avgas.
>
>
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
You can't use mogas anymore. It has ethanol in it. We don't even
sell it at the Suffolk, Airport anymore.
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 9:02 AM
Subject: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
> http://www.egyptian.net/~raymacke/Cbnskif27.htm
>
> Here is an interesting article from a person using Caswell epoxy tank
> sealer and ethanol fuel.
>
> Don Smythe
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Glenn,
I live about 30 miles to your North and Ethanol has not reached us yet.
Don Smythe
Do Not Archive
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:49 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>
> You can't use mogas anymore. It has ethanol in it. We don't even
> sell it at the Suffolk, Airport anymore.
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Thanks so very much for your assistance on this Kurt. Yes, thinking about
what you say I do need more pitch and going on the result from the change I
made it confirms this. I been a bit focussed on getting cooling, belt
tracking etc sorted but now that those things seem pretty well sorted it's
time for some science. As you say, this is fun...I'll post my results. John
From: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
<smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Workable numbers John.
They tell more. Is that 4000 RPM at full throttle?
If not, what is your max speed, level flight and full
power? Can you go to max throttle without exceeding
your RPM limit in flight? If you get to the RPM limit
first, you need more pitch.
If possible, use 2000 feet pressure altitude (29.92
set) for comparison. That is about where I did much
of my testing so I could be consistant. Easier for us
to compare at it then.
I think you can put in a little more pitch and still
do well. Depends upon where you want the best
performance to be of course, T/O, climb, or cruise.
Looks like you have plenty of climb now and could tune
in a little more cruise. See what one more degree
does?
Since I have an inflight variable pitch prop and no
pitch gauge, I had to devise a way to set consistant
power to compare for performance testing. What I used
was max pitch and full throttle for one setting, and
increase to 3750 RPM at full throttle for the other.
I do not have good numbes for 4000 RPM for you right
now, but I am faster than that at just 3750 and full
throttle.
Not sure if this is best, but I pull 6 psi boost in
cruise. That should convert to about 42" for those
who measure that way. That seems to be where the
turbo is set to maintain pressure, since it seldom
goes higher.
Rick, what settings did you use? If 6psi is good,
John could pull a little more power with more pitch.
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kurt and others, I increased the pitch on my Warpdrive
72" 3 blade prop 1 degree and t/o, climb seem about
the same but airpeed rose at 4000rpm from 90 to 94ish.
Pulling just under one more inch of boost (1.5 psi) at
the same RPM. How does that compare to yours. John A.
__________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
I forgot to mention Kurt, no 4000 is not full out, plenty left so as you
say, more pitch required. John
From: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Subject: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
Kurt and others, I increased the pitch on my Warpdrive 72" 3 blade prop 1
degree and t/o, climb seem about the same but airpeed rose at 4000rpm from
90 to 94ish. Pulling just under one more inch of boost (1.5 psi) at the same
RPM. How does that compare to yours. John A.
Find the coolest online games at XtraMSN Games
_________________________________________________________________
Check out the latest video @ http://xtra.co.nz/streaming
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
A serious problem with the ethanol in fuel is that it will disolve Mil Spec 6000
rubber hoses!
This happened to me several years ago almost causing a fire in my hangar. Ethanol
does not effect SAE auto fuel lines but it eats up the Mil Spec pure rubber
items. I sent samples to the FAA and never heard a word back!
-----Original Message-----
>From: Don Smythe <dosmythe@cox.net>
>Sent: Jun 4, 2006 2:01 PM
>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
>
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
>Glenn,
> I live about 30 miles to your North and Ethanol has not reached us yet.
>
>Don Smythe
>Do Not Archive
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>>
>> You can't use mogas anymore. It has ethanol in it. We don't even
>> sell it at the Suffolk, Airport anymore.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Larry Huntley" <asq1@adelphia.net>
We have friend here who gave me a piece of totally closed MIL6000. He landed
his Kitfox in a field nearby. Lucky guy. Larry
----- Original Message -----
From: "WBL" <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: WBL <aeromer@ix.netcom.com>
>
> A serious problem with the ethanol in fuel is that it will disolve Mil
> Spec 6000 rubber hoses!
> This happened to me several years ago almost causing a fire in my hangar.
> Ethanol does not effect SAE auto fuel lines but it eats up the Mil Spec
> pure rubber items. I sent samples to the FAA and never heard a word back!
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Don Smythe <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>Sent: Jun 4, 2006 2:01 PM
>>To: kitfox-list@matronics.com
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
>>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>>
>>Glenn,
>> I live about 30 miles to your North and Ethanol has not reached us
>> yet.
>>
>>Don Smythe
>>Do Not Archive
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:49 PM
>>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
>>
>>
>>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>>>
>>> You can't use mogas anymore. It has ethanol in it. We don't even
>>> sell it at the Suffolk, Airport anymore.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
>
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: high oil temps 912 |
where did you get the thermosat and where did you install it?
John Kerr
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com>
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike"
>
> I personally have the big cooler with a thermostate. The thermostate is way
> cool, no more waiting for the engine to warm up, by the time I get to the runway
> I'm ready to go, doesn't matter if it's 30f outside or 90f, best thing, no more
> tape on the cooler. I've also had to replace the oil sensor about 200hrs ago,
> hum... last year.
>
> --------
> kitfoxmike
> kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster
> http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike
>
>
>
>
> Read this topic online here:
>
> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=38171#38171
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<html><body>
<DIV>where did you get the thermosat and where did you install it?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Kerr</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: "kitfoxmike" <kitfoxmike@yahoo.com> <BR><BR>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "kitfoxmike" <KITFOXMIKE@YAHOO.COM><BR>> <BR>> I personally have the big cooler with a thermostate. The thermostate is way <BR>> cool, no more waiting for the engine to warm up, by the time I get to the runway <BR>> I'm ready to go, doesn't matter if it's 30f outside or 90f, best thing, no more <BR>> tape on the cooler. I've also had to replace the oil sensor about 200hrs ago, <BR>> hum... last year. <BR>> <BR>> -------- <BR>> kitfoxmike <BR>> kitfox4 1200 912ul speedster <BR>> http://www.frappr.com/kitfoxmike <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> Read this topic online here: <BR>> <BR>> http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=38171#38171 <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <
BR>>
=====
===================================== <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>>
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Our turbo engine with an auto waste gate present a varied range of
settings. Simply put I flew in the torque band of the engine roughly
3800-4200 RPMs. AS RPM is increased boost increase to the waste gate set
level. If I remember correctly seems 16.5 at 4200 was good and putt
along about 110 IAS. Of course initial climb out was 5200 and pitch set
at I think 9. Boost was 42inches.
I did experiment for a short time only with a manual boost controller.
Way too much work load and far to sensitive for my liking. It worked,
just too much trouble for gain if any. My thinking at the time was to
over come lost boost at altitude due to the diaphragm type boost
controller, another topic it self. Yes I did take her up to almost
18,000 feet and that was on auto waste gate control.
With the new designed turbo I built boost was not an issue and I in fact
had to open the waste gate port to avoid over boost. No problem getting
50 inched to nose bleed altitude.
When working with a turbo in an aircraft, RPM, blade pitch, reduction
drive ratio, and throttle position can be used to get many different
power setting. I had hoped to develop some graphs and charts but my fun
got cut short. I really miss it. I love hearing about those of you that
still can do the experimenting and just hope I can help in a small way.
There is nothing like thinking something through and then going out and
testing your theories, great stuff.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
--> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Workable numbers John.
They tell more. Is that 4000 RPM at full throttle?
If not, what is your max speed, level flight and full
power? Can you go to max throttle without exceeding
your RPM limit in flight? If you get to the RPM limit
first, you need more pitch.
If possible, use 2000 feet pressure altitude (29.92
set) for comparison. That is about where I did much
of my testing so I could be consistant. Easier for us
to compare at it then.
I think you can put in a little more pitch and still
do well. Depends upon where you want the best
performance to be of course, T/O, climb, or cruise.
Looks like you have plenty of climb now and could tune
in a little more cruise. See what one more degree
does?
Since I have an inflight variable pitch prop and no
pitch gauge, I had to devise a way to set consistant
power to compare for performance testing. What I used
was max pitch and full throttle for one setting, and
increase to 3750 RPM at full throttle for the other.
I do not have good numbes for 4000 RPM for you right
now, but I am faster than that at just 3750 and full
throttle.
Not sure if this is best, but I pull 6 psi boost in
cruise. That should convert to about 42" for those
who measure that way. That seems to be where the
turbo is set to maintain pressure, since it seldom
goes higher.
Rick, what settings did you use? If 6psi is good,
John could pull a little more power with more pitch.
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kurt and others, I increased the pitch on my Warpdrive
72" 3 blade prop 1 degree and t/o, climb seem about
the same but airpeed rose at 4000rpm from 90 to 94ish.
Pulling just under one more inch of boost (1.5 psi) at
the same RPM. How does that compare to yours. John A.
__________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--- MIME Errors - No Plain-Text Section Found ---
A message with no text/plain MIME section was received.
The entire body of the message was removed. Please
resend the email using Plain Text formatting.
HOTMAIL is notorious for only including an HTML section
in their client's default configuration. If you're using
HOTMAIL, please see your email application's settings
and switch to a default mail option that uses "Plain Text".
--- MIME Errors No Plain-Text Section Found ---
Message 17
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Thanks Rick, another helpful post for me in the 'fun' stage.. tell me did
you have a std 81 turbo or larger? John
From: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Our turbo engine with an auto waste gate present a varied range of
settings. Simply put I flew in the torque band of the engine roughly
3800-4200 RPMs. AS RPM is increased boost increase to the waste gate set
level. If I remember correctly seems 16.5 at 4200 was good and putt
along about 110 IAS. Of course initial climb out was 5200 and pitch set
at I think 9. Boost was 42inches.
I did experiment for a short time only with a manual boost controller.
Way too much work load and far to sensitive for my liking. It worked,
just too much trouble for gain if any. My thinking at the time was to
over come lost boost at altitude due to the diaphragm type boost
controller, another topic it self. Yes I did take her up to almost
18,000 feet and that was on auto waste gate control.
With the new designed turbo I built boost was not an issue and I in fact
had to open the waste gate port to avoid over boost. No problem getting
50 inched to nose bleed altitude.
When working with a turbo in an aircraft, RPM, blade pitch, reduction
drive ratio, and throttle position can be used to get many different
power setting. I had hoped to develop some graphs and charts but my fun
got cut short. I really miss it. I love hearing about those of you that
still can do the experimenting and just hope I can help in a small way.
There is nothing like thinking something through and then going out and
testing your theories, great stuff.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
--> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Workable numbers John.
They tell more. Is that 4000 RPM at full throttle?
If not, what is your max speed, level flight and full
power? Can you go to max throttle without exceeding
your RPM limit in flight? If you get to the RPM limit
first, you need more pitch.
If possible, use 2000 feet pressure altitude (29.92
set) for comparison. That is about where I did much
of my testing so I could be consistant. Easier for us
to compare at it then.
I think you can put in a little more pitch and still
do well. Depends upon where you want the best
performance to be of course, T/O, climb, or cruise.
Looks like you have plenty of climb now and could tune
in a little more cruise. See what one more degree
does?
Since I have an inflight variable pitch prop and no
pitch gauge, I had to devise a way to set consistant
power to compare for performance testing. What I used
was max pitch and full throttle for one setting, and
increase to 3750 RPM at full throttle for the other.
I do not have good numbes for 4000 RPM for you right
now, but I am faster than that at just 3750 and full
throttle.
Not sure if this is best, but I pull 6 psi boost in
cruise. That should convert to about 42" for those
who measure that way. That seems to be where the
turbo is set to maintain pressure, since it seldom
goes higher.
Rick, what settings did you use? If 6psi is good,
John could pull a little more power with more pitch.
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kurt and others, I increased the pitch on my Warpdrive
72" 3 blade prop 1 degree and t/o, climb seem about
the same but airpeed rose at 4000rpm from 90 to 94ish.
Pulling just under one more inch of boost (1.5 psi) at
the same RPM. How does that compare to yours. John A.
__________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
Message 18
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Anyone flying a 7 with the 914? |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "darinh" <gerns25@netscape.net>
I am wanting to put a 914 on my "in progress" series 7 and am curious to hear what
others think of the engine/airframe combination. Also of great importance
would be the engine/prop combination. I know the Skystar factory demo had a
Hoffman CS prop but I am not sure that is the prop for me. I am definitely looking
at CS or in-flight adjustable to get the most out of the turbo engine obviously
but have not decided on the model prop yet. Any an all comments would
be great!
Thanks,
Darin
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=38576#38576
Message 19
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
You live next door to the refinery and you mean to
tell me you don't have 10% ethanol in all gas over in gennie.
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
> Glenn,
> I live about 30 miles to your North and Ethanol has not reached us yet.
>
> Don Smythe
> Do Not Archive
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
> To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
>
>
>> --> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>>
>> You can't use mogas anymore. It has ethanol in it. We don't even
>> sell it at the Suffolk, Airport anymore.
>
>
> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Kitfox-List
> http://wiki.matronics.com
>
>
>
Message 20
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Turbo EA-81 with correct turbo block, std not oversized.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Anderson
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
--> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Thanks Rick, another helpful post for me in the 'fun' stage.. tell me
did
you have a std 81 turbo or larger? John
From: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Our turbo engine with an auto waste gate present a varied range of
settings. Simply put I flew in the torque band of the engine roughly
3800-4200 RPMs. AS RPM is increased boost increase to the waste gate set
level. If I remember correctly seems 16.5 at 4200 was good and putt
along about 110 IAS. Of course initial climb out was 5200 and pitch set
at I think 9. Boost was 42inches. I did experiment for a short time only
with a manual boost controller. Way too much work load and far to
sensitive for my liking. It worked, just too much trouble for gain if
any. My thinking at the time was to over come lost boost at altitude due
to the diaphragm type boost controller, another topic it self. Yes I did
take her up to almost 18,000 feet and that was on auto waste gate
control. With the new designed turbo I built boost was not an issue and
I in fact had to open the waste gate port to avoid over boost. No
problem getting 50 inched to nose bleed altitude. When working with a
turbo in an aircraft, RPM, blade pitch, reduction drive ratio, and
throttle position can be used to get many different power setting. I had
hoped to develop some graphs and charts but my fun got cut short. I
really miss it. I love hearing about those of you that still can do the
experimenting and just hope I can help in a small way. There is nothing
like thinking something through and then going out and testing your
theories, great stuff.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
--> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Workable numbers John.
They tell more. Is that 4000 RPM at full throttle?
If not, what is your max speed, level flight and full
power? Can you go to max throttle without exceeding
your RPM limit in flight? If you get to the RPM limit
first, you need more pitch.
If possible, use 2000 feet pressure altitude (29.92
set) for comparison. That is about where I did much
of my testing so I could be consistant. Easier for us
to compare at it then.
I think you can put in a little more pitch and still
do well. Depends upon where you want the best
performance to be of course, T/O, climb, or cruise.
Looks like you have plenty of climb now and could tune
in a little more cruise. See what one more degree
does?
Since I have an inflight variable pitch prop and no
pitch gauge, I had to devise a way to set consistant
power to compare for performance testing. What I used
was max pitch and full throttle for one setting, and
increase to 3750 RPM at full throttle for the other.
I do not have good numbes for 4000 RPM for you right
now, but I am faster than that at just 3750 and full
throttle.
Not sure if this is best, but I pull 6 psi boost in
cruise. That should convert to about 42" for those
who measure that way. That seems to be where the
turbo is set to maintain pressure, since it seldom
goes higher.
Rick, what settings did you use? If 6psi is good,
John could pull a little more power with more pitch.
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kurt and others, I increased the pitch on my Warpdrive
72" 3 blade prop 1 degree and t/o, climb seem about
the same but airpeed rose at 4000rpm from 90 to 94ish.
Pulling just under one more inch of boost (1.5 psi) at
the same RPM. How does that compare to yours. John A.
__________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
Message 21
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson" <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Sorry Rick, I was meaning the actual turbo charger. I'm running an EA 82
unit on my EA81 engine, the idea being that as we operate at a higher
constant RPM than that in the automotive world, it's not spinning above it's
optimum RPM. John
From: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Turbo EA-81 with correct turbo block, std not oversized.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of John
Anderson
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 6:44 PM
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "John Anderson"
--> <janderson412@hotmail.com>
Thanks Rick, another helpful post for me in the 'fun' stage.. tell me
did
you have a std 81 turbo or larger? John
From: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Subject: RE: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "wingsdown" <wingsdown@comcast.net>
Our turbo engine with an auto waste gate present a varied range of
settings. Simply put I flew in the torque band of the engine roughly
3800-4200 RPMs. AS RPM is increased boost increase to the waste gate set
level. If I remember correctly seems 16.5 at 4200 was good and putt
along about 110 IAS. Of course initial climb out was 5200 and pitch set
at I think 9. Boost was 42inches. I did experiment for a short time only
with a manual boost controller. Way too much work load and far to
sensitive for my liking. It worked, just too much trouble for gain if
any. My thinking at the time was to over come lost boost at altitude due
to the diaphragm type boost controller, another topic it self. Yes I did
take her up to almost 18,000 feet and that was on auto waste gate
control. With the new designed turbo I built boost was not an issue and
I in fact had to open the waste gate port to avoid over boost. No
problem getting 50 inched to nose bleed altitude. When working with a
turbo in an aircraft, RPM, blade pitch, reduction drive ratio, and
throttle position can be used to get many different power setting. I had
hoped to develop some graphs and charts but my fun got cut short. I
really miss it. I love hearing about those of you that still can do the
experimenting and just hope I can help in a small way. There is nothing
like thinking something through and then going out and testing your
theories, great stuff.
Rick
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of kurt
schrader
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 11:47 PM
Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Specs
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader
--> <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Workable numbers John.
They tell more. Is that 4000 RPM at full throttle?
If not, what is your max speed, level flight and full
power? Can you go to max throttle without exceeding
your RPM limit in flight? If you get to the RPM limit
first, you need more pitch.
If possible, use 2000 feet pressure altitude (29.92
set) for comparison. That is about where I did much
of my testing so I could be consistant. Easier for us
to compare at it then.
I think you can put in a little more pitch and still
do well. Depends upon where you want the best
performance to be of course, T/O, climb, or cruise.
Looks like you have plenty of climb now and could tune
in a little more cruise. See what one more degree
does?
Since I have an inflight variable pitch prop and no
pitch gauge, I had to devise a way to set consistant
power to compare for performance testing. What I used
was max pitch and full throttle for one setting, and
increase to 3750 RPM at full throttle for the other.
I do not have good numbes for 4000 RPM for you right
now, but I am faster than that at just 3750 and full
throttle.
Not sure if this is best, but I pull 6 psi boost in
cruise. That should convert to about 42" for those
who measure that way. That seems to be where the
turbo is set to maintain pressure, since it seldom
goes higher.
Rick, what settings did you use? If 6psi is good,
John could pull a little more power with more pitch.
Kurt S.
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
Kurt and others, I increased the pitch on my Warpdrive
72" 3 blade prop 1 degree and t/o, climb seem about
the same but airpeed rose at 4000rpm from 90 to 94ish.
Pulling just under one more inch of boost (1.5 psi) at
the same RPM. How does that compare to yours. John A.
__________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
_________________________________________________________________
Need more speed? Get Xtra Broadband @
http://jetstream.xtra.co.nz/chm/0,,202853-1000,00.html
_________________________________________________________________
Shop til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping http://shopping.xtramsn.co.nz/home/
Message 22
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
At present there is less than a dollar difference and that is 87 octane vs
100LL. I buy 87 and mix with 100LL. Do not know how long I can get it minus
ethanol as the corn state of Indiana has e-plants popping up everywhere.
Dwight
At 11:51 AM 6/4/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
>At near $2.00 per gallon difference between 100LL and Auto fuel it won'
>take long to have new Ethanol proof fuel tanks made of gold or silver. I
>would ask which is the greatest danger to a Rotax 2 stroke, 100LL or Auto
>gas w/ ethanol??? This question has probably been raised before but, I
>missed it.
>
>Don Smythe
>----- Original Message -----
>>Since the damage caused by ethanol is irreversable and apparently
>>unavoidable if using Mogas. It might be worthwhile to start considering
>>using LL100 Avgas. It will increase service requirements on most Rotax
>>engines but that appears to be the better choice. The FAA has already get
>>the EPA and other agencies from messing with Avgas, and they are looking
>>for lead free avgas formulas. It's highly unlikely they'll allow ethanol
>>into Avgas.
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 23
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com>
In Indiana they have not posted on the pumps for years the 10% ethanol
stickers. They do not have to post unless more than 10%.
Ther is a very good article in last months Kitplanes on the Future of
100LL and mogas.
Dwight
At 05:01 PM 6/4/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Don Smythe" <dosmythe@cox.net>
>
>Glenn,
> I live about 30 miles to your North and Ethanol has not reached us yet.
>
>Don Smythe
>Do Not Archive
>----- Original Message ----- From: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>To: <kitfox-list@matronics.com>
>Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 4:49 PM
>Subject: Re: Kitfox-List: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel
>
>
>>--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "Glenn Horne" <glennflys@verizon.net>
>>You can't use mogas anymore. It has ethanol in it. We don't even
>>sell it at the Suffolk, Airport anymore.
>
>
>--
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
--
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Message 24
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Pics do paint 1000 words |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: "ron schick" <roncarolnikko@hotmail.com>
Thanks Matt this will resolve a lot of questions as the answers can be
illistrated with a picture. I was going to attach a pic of my new baby
(fox), but will have to study resizing first as it is large at 580kb
I thought Hotmail resized automatically, but will send something to myself
to find out. Ron NB Or
_________________________________________________________________
Message 25
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Great John,
Keep us impressed!
I know what you mean about priorities too. It was a
while before I noticed my gearbox temps were high and
I did something about it, because I too was working on
more pressing matters in early testing. Cooling
always seems an issue early on as well. In my case,
fixing a badly functioning breather came first.
If you plan to go up into the rare air like Rick, you
will need even more pitch to not overspeed or under
power your plane. Once again, mission dictates. With
all your power, you can achieve many objectives with
power to spare, as you already seem to be doing.
Kurt S.
Do not archive
--- John Anderson <janderson412@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks so very much for your assistance on this
> Kurt. Yes, thinking about
> what you say I do need more pitch and going on the
> result from the change I
> made it confirms this. I been a bit focussed on
> getting cooling, belt
> tracking etc sorted but now that those things seem
> pretty well sorted it's
> time for some science. As you say, this is
> fun...I'll post my results. John
__________________________________________________
Message 26
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Tank sealer/Ethanol fuel |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
I hear WalMart is now considering selling ethanol fuel
at their stores. It is expanding.... and some drivers
will have problems too. My old Dodge Caravan loved to
run on the higher octane 10% stuff until the fuel pump
and filter failed. Nothing like raising the hood to
see fuel spraying all over your running engine.
kurt S.
--- dwight purdy <dpurdy@comteck.com> wrote:
> At present there is less than a dollar difference
> and that is 87 octane vs
> 100LL. I buy 87 and mix with 100LL. Do not know how
> long I can get it minus
> ethanol as the corn state of Indiana has e-plants
> popping up everywhere.
>
> Dwight
__________________________________________________
Message 27
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Wing tanks - Was West System Epoxy answer |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Yes Don,
I was trying to come up with a way the bladder could
have an expanding frame like those self errecting
tents or windshield sun shades. Some way that would
not cause it to get poked or wear yet let the frame
hold it in place. you might have to adjust it as you
install it, but then it would stay put?
Be nice if you could put a bladder in, then spray in
the expanding foam like that is used in racing tanks.
It would inflate to fit and be really better. But
does that foam expand?
Just a thought....
Without the internal baffles I think the tank would
need external ribs for stiffness.
Kurt S.
--- Don Smythe <dosmythe@cox.net> wrote:
> Kurt,
> That does make a bladder install much more
> difficult. It might still be doable with a well
> thought out installation kit???
>
> Don Smythe
> Do Not Archive
__________________________________________________
Message 28
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Thanks Rick,
I selfishly wish you were still leading at this too.
On my list of "around-to-its" is finding out why I go
lean only on certain flights, or always at those rpms
around 4000. My fear is that I have damaged the carb
from one of several reasons. Alcohol fuel, or over
pressure of the carb fuel. In any case, I can not
hold those RPM's without going above 1450 EGT, which I
have and now stay out of. Kind of limits my power
options....
Was your cruise at 110 MPH? indicated, or knots Rick?
Lance showed my torque curve pretty flat above 3200
rpm with the limit at 5600 rpm. Mostly I takeoff at
around 44-5000 rpm, but occasionally I takeoff at
54-5600 and there is a big difference! Snort, leap,
airborne! But I don't mind the 500' takeoff roll and
longer engine life.
I think you and John will always beat my engine
though. It is the little turbo. That is until I put
in your bigger one you sent, Rick. :-)
Kurt S.
--- wingsdown <wingsdown@comcast.net> wrote:
> Our turbo engine with an auto waste gate present a
> varied range of
> settings. Simply put I flew in the torque band of
> the engine roughly
> 3800-4200 RPMs. AS RPM is increased boost increase
> to the waste gate set
> level. If I remember correctly seems 16.5 at 4200
> was good and putt
> along about 110 IAS. Of course initial climb out was
> 5200 and pitch set
> at I think 9. Boost was 42inches........
__________________________________________________
Message 29
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: radiator additive ? don S |
--> Kitfox-List message posted by: kurt schrader <smokey_bear_40220@yahoo.com>
Got pictures Don?
Kurt S.
--- Don Smythe <dosmythe@cox.net> wrote:
> A bunch of things. Modified the engine cowl to
> remove the left air exhaust
> on the bottom pilot side of the engine cowl,
> fabricated side exhaust vents
> on the engine cowl, fabricated a fiberglass radiator
> cowl that extends full
> width and back to the aft crossover tube, double
> cockpit controlled louvers
> on backside of radiator, deflection plate from the
> front bottom of the
> engine cowl directing air into the "P51" type
> radiator inlet. I could have
> built a Kitfox faster than all this took but, it
> seems to work.
>
> Don Smythe
__________________________________________________
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|